Answer by Researcher pinkfreud on Tue 29 May 2007 - 11:25 pm UTC:

Hello again, Philipp!

In the United States, each state has its own laws on this matter, but
courts have generally held that it is legal to publish photographs of
strangers as long as the subjects are in public places where they would not
have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." So it's OK to post a pic of
some unnamed person buying ice cream from a street vendor, while it's not
OK to post a pic of the same unnamed person changing clothes in the locker
room of a spa. 

"I sometimes snap pictures of strangers and post them on my blog and
Flickr. Could I get into legal trouble for violating their privacy?

Snap away, shutterbug. As long as your subjects don't have a 'reasonable
expectation of privacy' - meaning they're not somewhere they'd never expect
a camera to be - you're on pretty solid ground. Even if you photograph them
while they're on private property, you're in the clear - just make sure
they're in plain view and you're not trespassing." 

Wired: Stalker or Shutterbug? 
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/start.html?pg=10

If a recognizable person appears in a photo that is destined for some sort
of commercial promotion, a "model release" agreement specifying the terms
under which the photo may be used (and establishing payment, if any) is the
norm. However, the Google Maps use seems more similar to news photography,
which traditionally does not require a model release from subjects. 

"Model releases are agreements (contracts) in which the people who appear
in photographs give their permission. The extent of the permission varies
with the wording in the releases. As a general rule, you do not need
releases for news photographs. If a subject in a news photo were to sue
you, newsworthiness would probably be an effective defense to such a suit.
Model releases are essential when you are using someone’s photo in a
print advertisement, or a broadcast commercial, or for other marketing
purposes.

Between the extremes of pure news and purely commercial uses, there are
gray areas. Suppose, for example, you are using someone’s photograph to
illustrate a general feature story. The subject himself has done nothing
newsworthy. Perhaps he was just sitting in a park minding his own business,
and you want to use the photo to accompany a feature story about city
parks. The odds are still with you that you can get away with using the
photograph without the subject’s permission. He was, after all, in full
view in a public place, and your camera merely recorded what everyone else
could see. But you should realize that this is more risky than using the
photo of a newsworthy subject." 

Legal Handbook For NYS Journalists
http://www.nysba.org/Content/ContentGroups/News1/Legal_Handbook_for_NYS_Journalist/Legal_Handbook_(Chapter_Twentythree).htm

From what I have read online, German privacy law is somewhat different:

"You do have to be careful. I'm in Germany and I put some recognizable
photos on my weblog... and then it hit me about German privacy law - French
is probably the same. You can photograph people in the public eye, but not
'ordinary' people. Which is OK until you put the pictures on your weblog or
in a newspaper, and then they may find out and sue you." 

Anders Jacobsen's blog
http://www.jacobsen.no/anders/blog/archives/2003/08/26/a_french_roundabout_by_night.html

"..the [Court of Human Rights] said that the 'zone of interaction of a
person with others, even in a public context' fell within the sphere of
private life."

Strasbourg Privacy Revolution?
http://www.carter-ruck.com/articles/090704_StrasbourgPrivacyRevolution.html


"Germany - Privacy...
As a rule, publications of photographs always require the consent of the
individuals depicted. However, the subject's interest in keeping his or her
private life confidential must be weighed against the need of the public to
be informed. German courts have developed a detailed, balanced practice in
this respect, according to which, for example, pictures taken in a secluded
location or showing children and their parents is not permitted. In
contrast, pictures from the 'ordinary' private life of celebrities (e.g.
shopping or doing sports) had usually been permitted. In 2004, however, the
European Court of Human Rights ruled in the Princess Caroline case that the
German public figure defence was too wide. It held that German courts
should decide if the claimant has been depicted in public in connection
with the activity that has made them famous. Furthermore, the disclosure of
photographs of someone's private life can only be justified if the
photographs contribute to a matter of public debate. Thus, photographs
depicting the private life of ordinary people will almost always require
consent and similar photographs of celebrities will often require
consent."

Defamation and privacy law and procedure in England, Germany and France
http://www.taylorwessing.com/website/generator/taylorwessing/content/publications/items/UK/DefamationAndPrivacyLawProcedure__TWUK__english.en,property=file.pdf

Regarding a case involving a website that is hosted in one country, but
viewed from another, I have found no definitive guideline on this. On the
one hand: 

"Within the European Union, in principle, the law of the country in which
the site is registered applies." 

Net Consumers: Child safety on the Internet
http://www.foodaware.org.uk/erica/alto.htm

But then again...

"A New York Judge has ruled today that Web sites are legally liable under
the laws of the country in which the site is being viewed.

The ruling states an Antiguan gambling website is liable under New York
state gambling laws, simply because the site can be accessed from New York.
This ruling mirrors a UK ruling from last week which states that someone
resident in the UK is liable under UK pornography laws for material posted
to a server in the United States."

Alarming Internet Jurisdiction Precedent Set
http://evolt.org/node/295

Please keep in mind that I am not trained in law; this answer is
informational, not authoritative. I hope it is helpful.

Best,
Pink